ORIGEN DEL PROBLEMA

Chapter Six TaqlĪd



THE REALITY OF TAQLöD

When the doors

of ijtihód closed and every madhhab ceded to the madhhabs of the four imams, taqlõd of the four madhhabs became in-cumbent upon the community. Those who say taqlõd is polytheism [shirk]

do not understand the meaning of taqlõd. Taqlõd is not independent of the Sunna of the Blessed Prophet s. It is nothing more than acceptance of all the rulings the mujtahids derived from the Qur’an, the aúódõth, and the sayings of the Companions l. This is because the definition of taqlõd is given as:

When one who does not possess the ability of ijtihód accepts the derivative juristic rulings of a mujtahid; he does not ask for proof and trusts that the mujtahid possesses the proof to support his ruling.

In Abñ Dówñd, Jóbir g narrates:

“Once we went on a journey. A stone hit and injured one of the men on the head. Shortly after, he became impure by major ritual im-purity [janóba] and had to take a bath. He asked his friends, ‘Am I allowed to perform dry ablution [tayammum]?’ They replied, ‘No, not when water is available.’ He then took a bath and died shortly

thereafter. After they returned, the Blessed Prophet s was informed of the incident. He said, “They killed him, may Allah u kill them.

When they did not know the ruling why didn’t they ask a scholar;

asking is the cure for an incompetent person.”¹

These people derived their opinion from the explicit meaning of the aya, ‘and you did not find water,’² but as mentioned previously, there are many conditions for ijtihód. This is why Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taimiyya says in his fatwa:

The opinion of the majority of the community is that ijtihód and taqlõd are both permissible: ijtihód for one who has the ability to do so and taqlõd for the one incapable of it.³

In another place, he writes:

It is permissible for a person to follow a specific imam when he is un-able to gather information about the Shari‘a from any other source.

Though, if he can gain knowledge of the Shari‘a through other means, he is not then obligated to follow the madhhab of that imam.

Abū al-Walõd Bójī Mólikõ, commentator of the Muwaøøa’ writes in Kitób al-ûudñd fi al Uüñl:⁴

Taqlõd means to accept the one you are following without asking for proof though you may already know it. This is obligatory upon a person who is incapable of ijtihód.

Shaikh Gangohī writes in one of his letters⁵ which Mufti Shafõ‘ repro-duced in his book Jawóhir al-Fiqh:

You say: taqlõd of a specific imam is an evil innovation [al-bid‘at al-sayyi’a].

I say: According to you, taqlõd of a specific imam is permissible and you have admitted to this yourself. The only problem is you do not understand the meaning of ‘permissibility.’ Listen for a minute, you

TaqlĪd

Shari‘a & Tarīqa

66

should know that you have just rejected the textual and rational evi-dences of taqlõd [by pronouncing that taqlõd of a specific imam is an evil innovation]. Taqlõd itself is mandated by the aya:

َنوُمَلْعَت ل ْمُتْن ُك ْنِإ ِر ْك ِّذلا َلْهَأ اوُلَأْساَف

So, ask the people [having the knowledge] of the message if you do not know.⁶

And the hadith:

ُلاَؤُّسلَا ِّىِاعْالا ُءاَفِاش َاَّنمِإ

Verily the cure of an incompetent [who does not possess the necessary means, skill or know-how] person is in asking.⁷

It is also understood that Dõn cannot be attained without learn-ing; it is not something acquired by the senses or the intellect. There-fore, absolute taqlõd [taqlõd muølaq] is itself mandatory [for one who does not possess the ability of ijtihód]. Surely, you will accept this much but if you don’t, than I shall prove it in another way:

Absolute taqlõd is of two kinds:

1 Restricted taqlõd [to a specific imam]

2 Unrestricted taqlõd

Both these two originate from the same root of absolute taqlõd re-gardless of how you put it. You may call it a root and its two branches, an absolute and its two particulars, or a whole and its two parts; put it anyway you want it. Anyhow, both of these two particulars are subordinate to absolute taqlõd, which is mandatory. Now I ask you, how a part [or branch] of a whole [or root] which is mandatory can itself be permissible. O servant of Allah u! Mandatory and allow-able [mubóú] are two opposite branches from the root of command [úukm]. Then, how can the branch of allowable simultaneously be a branch of its opposite [mandatory]. Think for a minute, absolute taqlõd is mandatory and restricted taqlõd allowable, though restricted taqlõd is a part of absolute taqlõd. The discrepancy in your thinking is

based on this one misunderstanding. Now use your head. Both types of taqlõd are mandatory. There is no allowable except in the option of choosing between restricted and unrestricted taqlõd. If you take one you have no need for the other but if you leave both you are sinful.

The option of choosing between one of the two is metaphorically called allowable, not that restricted taqlõd itself is allowable. The ex-ample of this is like expiation for one who breaks his oath [úalaf ].

Expiation for breaking the oath is itself mandatory, but one is per-mitted to expiate by feeding the poor, clothing them or freeing a slave. It is permitted for him to do any one of the three, but to refuse all of them is a sin. Likewise is the case with all the general principles of the Shari‘a. Everything the Shari‘a regulates as a general order is mandatory. The permissibility is only in choosing the option be-tween one of its many parts. It is not the contradiction you assumed by declaring restricted taqlõd as allowable when it is actually manda-tory. If this is the case, then by the same token that restricted taqlõd is at the most allowable in your opinion, those who say restricted taqlõd is mandatory will respond that unrestricted taqlõd should be an evil innovation. This is because unrestricted taqlõd is in the same meaning as restricted taqlõd in being allowable since they both are branches of the same root [i.e., if restricted taqlõd is an innovation in your opinion, then why would it be wrong for them to assert that unrestricted taqlõd is also an innovation since both restricted and unrestricted taqlõd are branches of the same root].



A LETTER BY SHAIKH QôSIM

The letter is lengthy but worth reading. Mufti Shafõ‘ reproduced a letter of Shaikh Qósim Nónautwõ, who wrote:

Listen to this important point on taqlõd. Undoubtedly, there is only one Dõn, and that is the Dõn of Islam, and all the four madhhabs are on truth [úaqq].

Ayurveda and modern medicine are essentially the same. The ayurvedic diagnoses and prescribes medicines like the modern phy-sician but at the time of sickness, the only one whose treatment is taken is the one who is caring for the patient. Nobody will take the opinion of the other, be it the ayurvedic or the physician. Likewise,

TaqlĪd

Shari‘a & Tarīqa

68

in common issues or otherwise when there is disagreement between the madhhabs, the muqallid will follow his imam whoever it may be. Yes, it sometimes happens that we leave one physician for an-other, but even then we only take the medicine prescribed by the new physician. Likewise, it happened in the past that some of our pious predecessors left their madhhab for whatever reason and began fol-lowing another. Once they changed their madhhab, they stuck with it. They never combined different opinions from different madhhabs as if making their own fifth madhhab. Imam ùaúówõ, an eminent jurist and hadith master, was previously Shófi‘õ but later chose the ûanafõ madhhab. However, there is no way out without taqlõd. This is why millions of hadith masters and other scholars were muqallid.

Take the example of Imam Tirmidhõ, who was a great scholar, jurist, and hadith master. He is also the author of the renowned hadith collection, Sunan al-Tirmidhõ but was still a muqallid, and if you do not believe me study his hadith book, Sunan al-Tirmidhõ. When such scholars were muqallid [Imam Tirmidhõ was a muqallid of Imam Shófi‘õ; Imam Abñ Yñsuf and Imam Muúammad were muqallid of Imam Abñ ûanõfa] then which scholar of our time can be free of taqlõd? And what difference does it make if one of the previous scholars did not do taqlõd of one of the imams? Who looks at one or two people when millions are doing it? If you ask anyone with any understanding, you will be told that the true way is to follow the way that has been established from the time of the pious predecessors in our community. Furthermore, it would be foolish of us to straddle between madhhabs only because a few scholars did so in the past. It is like the example of a sick and ignorant person observing a physi-cian diagnosing and treating himself and suddenly he feels he should do the same. After all, if the physician can do it why can’t he and thus save himself a trip to the doctor? Would you call this person smart or foolish? Similarly, if an ignoramus rejects taqlõd on the basis that some scholar in the past did his own ijtihód, would you not say, regardless of whether he truly possesses knowledge or not, that he has no common sense in matters of Dõn? And forget the ignorant ones, believe me, even most of the scholars of today are completely ignorant. In fact, some of these scholars are more ignorant than the ignorant. With two Urdu books under their arms, they go around giving speeches without possessing an iota of knowledge. Knowledge of Dõn is when one can teach any subject of Dõn to the seekers of knowledge.⁸



CONFESSION OF A SALAFö SCHOLAR

Amongst many of the letters of Shaikh ûussain Aúmad Madanī⁹ is a long letter written in response to the former head of al-Jamó‘t al-Islómī in India, Abñ al-Laith. He writes:

Shaikh Muúammad ûussain Batólwõ was one of the fieriest leaders of the Salafõ group. He was bitterly opposed to taqlõd and was one of the foremost propagators of the Salafõ movement in India at the time. He [Shaikh Batólwõ] writes in his magazine Ishó‘at al-Sunna [v.2: p. 20, 51-53]:

‘After fifty-three years of experience, I have learned this much: those who ignorantly renounce following an inde-pendent mujtahid and belief in absolute taqlõd eventually say farewell [salóm] to Islam. Some of them convert to Chris-tianity while others renounce all religions and become in-dependent of any religion or belief. The lowest level of this renunciation is rejection of and deviation from the rulings of Shari‘a; some of these heretics go as far to reject the Jumu‘a üalót, congregational üalót, üalót, and fasting. They do not abstain from alcohol and usury. Some of them avoid open confrontation with the Dõn for worldly reasons but are en-gaged in it quietly. They entrap women, wedding them ille-gitimately; and usurp people’s wealth through impermissible means; hold up the wealth owed to Allah u; and violate His rights. There are other ways of inviting disbelief, apostasy, and heresy, but the most effective way of destroying the Dõn of the people who are ignorant of Dõn, is rejection of taqlõd.’



DISCOURSE BETWEEN SHAIKH QôSIM

AND A SALAFö SCHOLAR

This excerpt of Shaikh Muúammad ûussain Batólwõ’s words taken by Shaikh ûussain Aúmad Madanī shows what Shaikh learned after many years of experience. In another book, Sawóniú-e-Qósimõ, there is another incident about him. Shaikh Muúammad ûussain Batólwõ wrote a letter

TaqlĪd

Shari‘a & Tarīqa

70

to Shaikh Qósim Nónautwõ saying, “I need to talk to you privately about some important matters, but under the condition that none of your stu-dents will be with you when we talk.” Shaikh Nónautwõ accepted and replied, “Please do come.” Thereafter, Shaikh Batólwõ came to Shaikh Nónautwõ, the door of the room was closed, and the conversation began.

Shaikh Nónautwõ said to Shaikh Batólwõ, “Whatever you say, be aware of two things. First, you will narrate the ruling of the ûanafõ madh-hab while I am responsible for presenting the evidences. Second, I am a muqallid of Imam Abñ ûanõfa; any objection you raise must be based on a ruling of Imam Abñ ûanõfa, not something written in Shómõ¹⁰ or by the author of al-Durr al-Mukhtór that he said such and such thing because I am not their muqallid.”

Thereafter, many controversial issues of raising the hands after bowing [ruku‘], reciting Sñrat al-Fótiúa behind the imam, saying ómõn out loud, and other such issues were discussed. As per instruction, Shaikh Batólwõ narrated the ruling of the ûanafõ madhhab on the issue while Shaikh Nónautwõ presented evidence from the Qur’an and Sunna. During the talk, whenever Shaikh Nónautwõ presented his arguments and evidences, Shaikh Batólwõ would become ecstatic, frequently crying out, ‘Allah u be praised, Allah u be praised,’ and almost stood up in amazement. When the talk was over, he said, “I am amazed that a person like yourself and then a muqallid!” (i.e. with all this knowledge, insight, and ability to de-rive from the Qur’an and Sunna how can you be a muqallid?) Shaikh Nónautwõ replied, “And I am amazed that a person like yourself can be a Salafõ.” I also heard this same incident from some elders. They said that at the end of their talk, Shaikh Nónautwõ said to Shaikh Batólwõ, “Your saying what you said about me while I am a muqallid is reasonable proof of the importance of taqlõd.”



AN ANECDOTE

One of my classmates, who graduated from Maþóhir al-‘Ulñm,¹¹ was later employed as a librarian in the school library but left because of the low salary. He went to work in Aligarh [India] for a Ph.D doctor who was a Salafõ. He sent me a letter three or four days after being hired, explaining how he was enjoying it in Aligarh and that the salary was decent. He also said, “He [the doctor] is very good; he loves me and always invites me for

dinner. Since I have arrived though, I have gotten myself stuck in a pre-dicament. When he prays and rises from after bowing, he raises his hands and keeps them frozen in that position until he is in prostration [sajda].

He never falls on his face because he is used to it, but when I do the same thing I fall on my face. When I tell him that Shaikh Thanó Allóh u Pónõpatõ and Shaikh Naþõr ûussain [known Salafõ scholars] wrote in their fatwas that one should drop his hands after raising the hands he exclaims,

‘Am I a muqallid of Shaikh Naþõr and Shaikh Pónõpatõ? If I wanted to do taqlõd why shouldn’t I just follow Imam Abñ ûanõfa who was greater in his knowledge, his deeds, and his taqwó than them?’ Could you kindly send me a hadith that proves that the Blessed Prophet s dropped his hands immediately after he raised them before he prostrated? I am in a very dif-ficult position.”

At the time, I was teaching a session on aúódõth. I don’t have the letter at the moment, nor do I remember the whole incident, but I do remember sending some aúódõth by Abñ ûumaid al-Sa‘dõ g from Bukhórõ. In the hadith, the Companion g describes the Blessed Prophet s:

ُهَنا َكَم ٍراَقَف ُّلُك َدْوُعَي َّتيَح يَوَتْسِاا ُهَساَر َعَفَر اَذِااَف

As he stood up, he would relax until every limb was in its proper place.¹² This can only be true if the Blessed Prophet s dropped his hands after raising them.

TaqlĪd

Shari‘a & Tarīqa

72



_ENDNOTES

1 Abñ Dówñd, fi al-Majrñú Yatayammam 2 5:6

3 Fatówó Ibn Taimiyya, 20/203 4 Kitób al-ûudñd fi al-Uüñl, p. 64

5 This letter was written in response to someone who wrote to him about the matter of taqlõd. He agreed that absolute taqlõd was obligatory but declared that taqlõd of a specific imam [taqlõd al-shakhs] was an innovation and if anything, permissible only.

6 21:7

7 Baihaqõ 1/227 | Dare Quønõ 1/189 | Abñ Dówñd fõ al-Majrñh Yatayammam 8 Jawóhir al-Fiqh, 1/135

9 Makótõb Shaikh ûussain Madanī, p. 416

10 An appellation for the ûanafõ text, Radd al-Mukhtór 11 Reknowned traditional Islamic school in Sahóranpñr, India 12 Bukhórõ, Sunnat al-Julñs fi al-Tashahhud



In document 3. BIG PASS (página 49-55)